SuperFreakonomics has ratings and reviews. Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes And Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance.
Table of contents
People voted into The Baseball Hall of Fame outlive those were were narrowly omitted.
- The Canine Adventures of a Gas Meter Reader!
- .
- Stanford Libraries.
- Justice in Luritz: Experiencing Socialist Law in East Germany;
There is a long list of cancers where chemotherapy has zero effect Some oncologists argue that with these types of cancer chemotherapy helps one out of ten people. So why is chemotherapy used so much? The age-adjusted mortality rate for cancer is essentially unchanged over the past half-century. Over the same period age-adjusted mortality for cardiovascular disease has plummeted. From nearly per , to beneath Many people who in previous generations died from heart disease are now living to die of cancer instead.
So the statistics are better than they initially look. Cancer death rates are falling amongst younger people: This is an especially good result, as incidents of cancers in this age group have been rising. Probably due to diet, behaviours and environmental factors. Expensive treatments like grafts, angioplasties and stents have only had a very small impact. The decline has come rather from the success of medications which treat high cholesterol and high blood pressure. This accounts for half the drop. Much of the remaining decline has come from ridiculously cheap treatments like asperin, heparin, ACE inhibitors and beta-blockers.
St James's Hospital in Dublin recorded a near tripling of patients who had set themselves on fire while burning trash. They are thought to have been invented early in the 17th century by an obstetrician called Peter Chamerlen. They worked so well that Chamberlen kept them a secret, sharing them only with sons and grandsons who continued in the family business. It wasn't until the midth century that they passed into general usage. The surgeon Atul Gawande says that millions of babies' lives were lost as a result of this hoarding. Instead doctors should wear bow ties. They feed our world.
If we lost them we would only have fruit and animal products on special occasions, or they would only be eaten by the rich. Every inch of whales could be used. Most valuable was whale oil, a lubricant for all sorts of machinery but also for lamps. In the 19th century there were whaling ships, of them were in the USA. It was the fifth largest industry in the US.
Then the industry was exhausted through over-whaling, and it begun to fail. That is when a retired railway man called Edwin L Drake, using a steam engine to power a drill through 70 feel of shale and bedrock, struck oil in Titusville, Pennsylvania. The new oil industry provided work for unemployed whalers, and it saved whales from near-certain extinction. Over time the numbers crept up, thanks to a variety of nudges. They do this via exhalation, flatulence, belching and their manure. Methane is 25 times more potent as a green house gas than carbon dioxide released by cars or humans.
This does more to reduce greenhouse gases than eating locally-resourced food. In fact Australian scientists are trying to replicate the digestive bacteria in kangaroos' stomachs so it can be transplanted to cows Instead they promote Nathan Myhrvold, and his Budyko's Blanket A plan to put sulfer dioxide into the stratosphere , which they believe could reverse global warming. High latitude areas are 4 times more sensitive to climate change than the equator. View all 20 comments. Apr 10, Ryan Melena rated it did not like it Shelves: Ugh, pop culture trash masquerading as economics in turn masquerading as hard science.
There were so many glaring flaws in the authors' assumptions, "logic", and conclusions that within just the introduction they had already lost all credibility. Right up front the authors declare that fears about global warming are overblown because the issue will likely be solved by technological innovation and then offer as proof the fact that cars eliminated the problems caused by horse-based transportation.
So, you know, don't worry everyone we're sure to have a "solution" to global warming with even larger negative externalities any day now! That's not even taking into account more subtle problems with the "we always innovate our way out of problems" argument like survivorship bias, or the assumption that human ingenuity is unbounded, or the assumption that we'll recognize pending catastrophes in time to act, or the assumption that global changes will be politically acceptable on a global level, or the complete disregard for loss of life while waiting for the technological solution, etc.
I quickly concluded that this book wasn't worth the effort to finish. View all 11 comments. Jan 29, Trevor rated it liked it Shelves: I liked this book more than I expected I would like it and liked it more than their previous effort — but have given it less stars this time than the last one. The reason for this is that their last book introduced me to the whole field of behavioural economics and one is always fond of books that introduce entire new fields. I had some real problems with some of the contents of this book — or rather, not the contents so much as the underlying philosophy.
There is a lack of consistency of thought I liked this book more than I expected I would like it and liked it more than their previous effort — but have given it less stars this time than the last one. There is a lack of consistency of thought behind this one that is quite startling. The underlying premise of this one is that people respond to incentives. As a theme this is utterly fascinating although a much better book on this subject is Predictably Irrational: What the lesson of this book ought to have been. The world is a very complex place.
We learn rules and laws and tendencies of behaviour mostly by holding all the endless numbers of variables more or less equal while fiddling with only one variable at a time. Sometimes this brings great insight, often not — but in trying to understand incredibly complex systems this method of fiddling has the advantage that in holding all other things equal we get an idea of what the particular knob we are fiddling with effects when you turn it.
With human behaviour even economic behaviour you are always dealing with incredible complexity. However, people tend to behave in ways that are fairly predictable and we can devise experiments that test how they will behave that do hold some of the other variables pretty constant. Some of those experiments say incredibly fascinating things about what it is to be human.
Kundrecensioner
If this book had done this and been consistent in having done this I probably would have given it five stars. The whole thing is a bit of a mess, really, saved only by the inherent interest there is in the subject. I would have thought that the lesson this book would have wanted to make abundantly clear would be that complex systems respond in unpredictable ways to simple interventions. There may be consistent patterns that we can understand, but overall you are better having an open mind when you come to a new example of incentives and interventions and go back to the data rather than theories to judge the effectiveness of particular interventions.
And this is the lesson of the book in part — when they are discussing car accidents or drunk walking they do go back to the data. The fact that I think they seem to have misrepresented some of the data and that I would rather they had given more detail to support their views is a little beside the point, at least they were behaving in a way that I could follow, if not necessarily agree with. But when they started solving climate change I figured they had completely lost the plot of their book entirely.
I mean, if it was someone who had helped set up Apple I might have believed that such a solution to global warming might even exist — but Microsoft??? As if simple and Microsoft were words that could reasonably be used in the same sentence. And what if this intervention is too effective — I know it might only take three years for things to get back to normal, but how are we to survive without food for three years?
Do you really want someone from Microsoft pissing around with our climate? The part of this book that dealt with the story of a woman being raped and murdered in New York while 38 people watched on was interesting as it showed there was much more to this story than just that people are arseholes. Whenever a story seems a little too pat there is probably going to be more to the story. That they explain that this story is not so simple is probably worth the price of the book. It is a service provided to humanity that the authors deserve to be praised for.
The stuff on prostitution was interesting, as was the stuff on Indian women and television. I quite liked the stuff on how to get doctors to wash their hands — but what was most interesting about many of these examples was that they were about finding ways incentives to change a culture and that often the way found was cultural rather than financial — that is a lesson you will find much easier to learn and understand from reading Predictably Irrational than it is to get from this book.
Well, I can only assume it is because it is a lesson the authors here have not quite learned themselves yet. View all 10 comments. Those renegade, cold blooded micro economists are back for more fun filled worldly observations and scathing attacks on the status quo. This time around the pair explore the economics of the worlds oldest profession and the myths and realities of global warming.
Makes me want to consider the incentives of most every occurrence and transaction. Levitt is on to something pretty cool here. Jan 16, Ann rated it really liked it Shelves: Intro--In which the global financial meltdown is entirely ignored in favor of more engaging topics: LaShanna, part-time prostitute One million dead "witches" The many ways in which females are punished for being born female Even Radcliffe women pay the price Title IX creates jobs for women; men take them 1 of every 50 women a prostitute The booming sex trade in old-time Chicago A survey like no other The erosion of prostitute pay Why did oral sex get so cheap?
John List,economist why don't real people behave like people in the lab? LoJack Mt Pinatubo teaches a lesson the obscenely smart, somewhat twisted gentlemen of Intellectual Ventures Assassinating mosquitoes "Sir, I am every kind of scientist! View all 3 comments.
SuperFreakonomics - Wikipedia
Apr 01, Michael rated it did not like it. Does anyone actually believe this crap? The first chapter about the economics of prostitution in this one was way better than the entire Freakonomics. As a result, I had faith that the authors would stick more to their field. As it turns out, they get more and more ridiculous as the book progresses, finishing off with a pair of shitshows. I'm still trying to figure out if the global cooling chapter and the monkey chapters are jokes.
SearchWorks Catalog
What bothered me most about the global cooling chapter wasn't s Does anyone actually believe this crap? What bothered me most about the global cooling chapter wasn't so much the views the authors develop but that they were trying to influence people on something they seem to know little about.
While earlier in the book, they explain how economics has expanded to "social economics" a. Why didn't they stick to the economics of global climate change? That would have been just as interesting and more their field. Instead, they take it upon themselves to select a handful of "geniuses" who have found simple solutions to a complex problem.
This book is even better than Freakonomics. The amount of insights and information from different fields you get exposed to is incredible. I am liking "economics" much more after reading their books Levitt and Dubner. Aug 28, Jesse rated it it was ok. A reluctant 3 stars. I'll give this book the benefit of the doubt and say that it probably would have worked better for me had I read it rather than listening to it. While I love the fact that audiobooks allow me to multi-task, it means that I'm less focused when I'm listening to them.
That's fine if it's a book like Savannah Blues but this book demanded more concentration, especially since the writing style was highly tangential to begin with. In fact, there were some interesting and entertaining tidbits here -- the career path of a successful self-employed call girl, the truth behind the "38 bystanders" of Kitty Genovese's murder a fundamental topic when I studied social psychology — who knew that the facts were misreported?
Unfortunately some of the other topics bored me, particularly when the authors focused less on behavior and more on science e. The authors often lost me in part because of my own distractibility while listening, but I found that it was hard to come back once I did lose focus. I highly recommend the first Freakonomics: Though there's room to quibble with a lot of the authors' claims, it's provocative and entertaining reading. There were moments where this one lived up to the standard set by the first, but overall I can't recommend it with the same enthusiasm.
From monkey prostitution to raising a terrorist I found this book interesting, frustrating, fascinating and infuriating mostly at the same time. The duo that brought Freakonomics with answers to why drug dealers live with their mothers and how the name that your parents gave you can determine which job you end up getting have now given us Superfreakonomics. To rogue economists or mad scientists this books meanderings may be make perfect sense, but to the likes of me I had a job trying From monkey prostitution to raising a terrorist To rogue economists or mad scientists this books meanderings may be make perfect sense, but to the likes of me I had a job trying to fathom how we got from one subject to another and then back to the original one at times.
It almost seemed like a couple of kids that get so excited about their school project that they just want to tell you everything all about it all at once. That said, some of the themes and questions posed I found fascinating: Why should suicide bombers buy life insurance? Why could eating kangaroo meat help save the planet? Why did 38 people watch Kitty Genovese be murdered and say nothing?
When I read Freakonomics a few years ago I gave it 2 stars. It attempted to tell us that teachers cheat, estate agents lie and black kids are usually given different names to white kids.
2 Comments
After having read this second offering I have decided to accept it for what it is - fun and light entertainment. Some of the findings are really fascinating and some are pretty banal and even confusing the global warming section had my eyes glazing over. However, to end on a positive note, the epilogue was genius! If you have ever wondered if monkey prostitution exists, wonder no more An interesting dog's breakfast of apparently unrelated essays supposedly on microeconomics, though the chapter on global warming ended up almost entirely on "global" issues.
One gets the impression they wrote a bunch of columns for a newspaper, say the New York Times , then decided to cash in on the fame of their previous book by publishing the essays together. That's what they did! No, th An interesting dog's breakfast of apparently unrelated essays supposedly on microeconomics, though the chapter on global warming ended up almost entirely on "global" issues.
No, the answer is not because both spouted a lot of hot air; it's "Gore and Pinatubo both suggest ways to cool the planet, albeit with methods whose cost-effectiveness are a universe apart. Oct 01, Paul rated it really liked it. The basic premise of this book is simple: Or, as the authors paraphrase Gary Becker on page 12, the "economic approach.
This one builds upon it in that it goes on to explain more cases of things that seemingly have no connection or common theme, but in fact d The basic premise of this book is simple: This one builds upon it in that it goes on to explain more cases of things that seemingly have no connection or common theme, but in fact do once you look a little deeper.
They use the same processes as any other data-driven field of study: The book is a fun, quick, and for the most part easy read. If anything it'll make you think a bit more about why people do the things they do, at least in a more "economic" sense. When they use jargon, they do so sparingly, and they always either include an explanation or use the context of what they are discussing in order to explain the concept to the reader. They try not to get too technical or complicated in their explanations for anything, and when they do, they almost always include a separate "this is what we're trying to say" way of explaining it.
They realize who their audience is non-economists , and do their best to keep our attention and focus on what they're saying. Most important of all, though, is that they include their sources in the endnotes - their own studies and the sources and studies of others who they included in the book. This is important because while they are writing for a more general, non-economist audience, they also know that they need to show their sources so people who are interested can follow up. More than that, though, is the fact that all of this is legitimate research that has been used by other organizations and institutions including the government , and thus is subject to peer review and analysis.
So their inclusion of their sources indicates that while the book may seem a bit This, I might add, is a bit more of the journalistic side of the book - taking the hard to understand stuff and distilling it down into something that the rest of us without Ph. Ds in economics can understand, and in this, the authors have done a pretty good job, to say nothing of the investigation and fact-digging and checking that was probably done while this was being written. Some of the reviews on here about this book have said that the authors got this thing right and that thing wrong, and while that may or may not be true, the fact is this: However, that isn't their aim with this book.
While they are using economic principles and methods to explain some rather unusual, non-economic things, they aren't trying to be the end-all source of wisdom. They probably say it best here: But that's all right. We are trying to start a conversation, not have the last word. Which means that you may find a few things in the following pages to quarrel with. Jun 08, Brian rated it did not like it Shelves: I enjoyed the original, which, if memory serves had much more cohesive chapters around specific theses. While the chapters treated the topic at hand, they seemed to be much more scattershot in terms of finding a number of correlations in data that "swirled" around the main hypothesis of the chapter.
As with many reviewers, I think that Dubner and especially Levitt have stepped a little outside their expertise with some of the topics in this book and with the ongoing Freakonomics "brand," particul I enjoyed the original, which, if memory serves had much more cohesive chapters around specific theses. As with many reviewers, I think that Dubner and especially Levitt have stepped a little outside their expertise with some of the topics in this book and with the ongoing Freakonomics "brand," particularly their podcast. In my opinion, Steven Levitt is now the major force behind this brand, and the result has been a reduction in academic quality in favor of sensation.
There's nothing wrong with that, but it's not where the series started. And whether it is Dubner or Levitt to blame, their forays into natural science have been pretty disappointing. Of course there are the problems with the climate science in this book, but also there have been several episodes of their podcast that have seemed overly credulous, particularly when it comes to "rogue scientists" who fit well with the "rogue economist" brand.
In short, while I always like the popularization of science, whether natural or social, It must be done with care. And I fear that Dubner and Levitt are slowly leaving that caution behind as they pursue their brand. Oct 23, Beth rated it did not like it. I wanted to love it, because I loved Freakonomics. But, alas, I did not. I don't know if they really chose less captivating topics than last time, but it felt like it. Also, if you happen to have read all or several of Malcolm Gladwell's and Atul Gawande's books, and even that Oshinksy book about the history of polio in the U.
I think my review might be a bit unfair. Perhaps if you haven't read any of those other b I wanted to love it, because I loved Freakonomics. Perhaps if you haven't read any of those other books, this one might feel original and interesting. But I bet it still won't feel as interesting as Freakonomics was. Jul 29, Mike rated it it was ok. I really enjoy reading books that challenge you to question conventional wisdom.
If you like Malcolm Gladwell I definitely recommend this book. HOWEVER, many of the topics are covered it Gladwell's books The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers, so be prepared to hear some regurgitation the brutal murder in queens with 38 onlookers who didn't call the cops, how the month you were born greatly affects your ability to play professional sports, and many others that have been covered in other more po I really enjoy reading books that challenge you to question conventional wisdom.
HOWEVER, many of the topics are covered it Gladwell's books The Tipping Point, Blink, and Outliers, so be prepared to hear some regurgitation the brutal murder in queens with 38 onlookers who didn't call the cops, how the month you were born greatly affects your ability to play professional sports, and many others that have been covered in other more popular books. Also, many of the statistical conclusions are nothing short of outlandish, for example, telling me that statistically I could drive in a car continuously for years before I would be likely to die in a drunk driving accident.
The assumptions leading up to that conclusion are vague and weak. With that caveat out of the way, most of the book was facsinating and it was a very quick read only ish pages. Also, definitely look up the group called "Intellectual Ventures", they are brilliant minds who believe the best solutions are cheap and simple.
I had heard about them before this book but finally decided to look them up, very good stuff. Nothing should be taken literally or for truth. But I really believe their fundamental premise that "the laws of supply and demand are often more powerful than the laws made by legislators. Apr 05, Elizabeta rated it it was amazing. The examples given are varied and totally unrelated to each other. The conclusions are not fully documented and the generalizations provided do not recognize exceptions or alternative points of view.
If you can get past these issues the book is a lot of fun to read. Reading this book is much the same as listening in on a bull session discussion between two clever comedians who know just enough information to be dangerous. The writing is spiced with puns and humor to keep the reader entertained. I suppose every reader has their own axe to grind or issue to praise from this book. I have too many axes to grind to mention here. However, there is one issue for which I praise the authors, which happens to the issue for which most people are criticizing them.
That is their discussion of global warming. I agree with their assertion that efforts to achieve international agreements to limit releases of carbon dioxide require an impossible degree of cooperation to be humanly or politically feasible. The book also indicates that if, by some miracle, such agreements were achieved it would be too late to make any meaning contribution toward preventing global warming. Based on the above premise, the book suggests that the most effective way to reduce global warming is to use geo-engineering methods to directly address the amount of sun energy reaching the earth.
The authors then discuss several optional approaches to achieving this goal. Their suggestions may sound a bit crazy. But changing human nature—which would be needed to voluntarily reduce use of fossil fuels—is just as farfetched as their suggestions. The use of fossil fuels will probably decrease in the future because of high prices brought about by limited supply.
This type of transition will be pushed by true economic reality, not cap-and-trade rules. The following are some multiple choice test questions that cover some of the issues contained in this book. They provide an indication of the scattered variety of subjects discussed by this book. The questions are copied from Amazon.
According to Superfreakonomics, what has been most helpful in improving the lives of women in rural India? The government ban on dowries and sex-selective abortions B. The spread of cable and satellite television C. Projects that pay women to not abort female babies D. Condoms made specially for the Indian market Question 2: Among Chicago street prostitutes, which night of the week is the most profitable? You land in an emergency room with a serious condition and your fate lies in the hands of the doctor you draw.
Attended a top-ranked medical school and served a residency at a prestigious hospital B. Gets high ratings from peers D. Spends more money on treatment Question 4: Which cancer is chemotherapy more likely to be effective for? Pancreatic cancer Question 5: Half of the decline in deaths from heart disease is mainly attributable to: Child car seats do a better job of protecting children over the age of 2 from auto fatalities than regular seat belts.
Drive a hybrid car B. Eat one less hamburger a week C. Buy all your food from local sources Question 8: Which is most effective at stopping the greenhouse effect? Public-awareness campaigns to discourage consumption B. Cap-and-trade agreements on carbon emissions C.
,445,291,400,400,arial,12,4,0,0,5_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg)
Freaky topics include the oldest profession hookers charge less nowadays because the sexual revolution has produced so much free competition , money-hungry monkeys yep, that involves prostitution, too and the dunderheadedness of Al Gore. There's not much substance to the authors' project of applying economics to all of life. Their method is to notice some contrarian statistic adult seat belts are as effective as child-safety seats in preventing car-crash fatalities in children older than two , turn it into "economics" by tacking on a perfunctory cost-benefit analysis seat belts are cheaper and more convenient and append a libertarian sermonette governments "tend to prefer the costly-and-cumbersome route".
The point of these lessons is to bolster the economist's view of people as rational actors, altruism as an illusion and government regulation as a folly of unintended consequences. After their runaway hit Freakanomics, Levitt economics, Univ. Readers will learn how the cure for childbed fever-a simple matter of doctors washing their hands-was teased out of hospital mortality statistics. The authors also examine the consequences of a garbage-collection tax imposed in Ireland: Other topics include the economics of prostitution, whether reducing carbon emissions to stop global warming stacks up against hard scientific evidence, and how a computer algorithm assists in the identification of possible terrorists.
Verdict Readable, irreverent, insightful, and an exemplary representation of analytical thinking, this is for readers who like to think-or possibly be infuriated. They assert that the unifying principle in the various topics they address is people responding to incentives in ways that are not necessarily predictable or manifest. Major themes are explored using a wide range of examples, e. Chapter titles are entertaining and provocative: In this sequel, Levitt and Dubner succeed in applying economic analysis to timely topics with stimulation, wit, and humor. Best of all, their book will appeal to a broad segment of the population.
All readership levels and collections. Liebling emeritus, Lafayette College. Thank you for using the catalog. Superfreakonomics [global cooling, patriotic prostitutes, and why suicide bombers should buy life insurance]. Whether investigating a solution to global warming or explaining why the price of oral sex has fallen so drastically, Levitt and Dubner mix smart thinking and great storytelling to show how people respond to incentives.
Putting the freak in economics -- How is a street prostitute like a department-store Santa?